Apple's IP.... wtf?
Magnetically coupled connectors have been used between power cords and appliances in Asia for years longer than Apple have had MagSafe
Sorry it's not USB -- it requires the proprietary Green Plug chip to work.
They are trying to sell their chip by having us push the manufacturers into making mass purchases of the chip ( or chip schematics) because we "demand it".
And they are trying to sell this "initiative" as a standard without releasing the chip schematics to a standards organization.
It's Easy. reCAPTCHA is a Web service. As such, adopting it is as simple as adding 4 lines of code on your site. For many applications and programming languages such as Wordpress and PHP we also have easy-to-install plugins available. We generate and check the distorted images, so you don't need to run costly image generation programs.
WordPress has a GPL license and a reCAPTCHA plugin; so I'd hazard a guess that the reCAPTCHA license is open source friendly.
When showing reCAPTCHA to the user, is it possible not to show the reCAPTCHA logo? We allow you to customize the theme of reCAPTCHA with our Client API. You are still required to have text on your website which states that you are using reCAPTCHA, however with our theming API, you are free to do this in a way that blends in to your site.
There is more than one issue under discussion in this post, in no particular order here a a few of them.
1) Copyright ie who owns the software copyright --- the Sergeant, nerds rejoice
2) Did the government remove copyright from the original producer of this software --- no, nerds rejoice again
3) Why the government is immune from copyright lawsuits under a very narrow and particular set of circumstances --- the Sergeant induced the use of his copyrighted work through the course of his regular duties, some nerds are dejected and learn from this error
4) Why the government in not immune from all copyright lawsuits ---- because the government waived blanket sovereign immunity from copyright years ago, most nerds rejoice
5) Did the USAF break the time-lock on the software and in doing so violate DMCA provisions -- yes and they even paid someone to break the lock, nerds are wishy-washy as some hate and some like the DMCA
6) Why the government is immune from DMCA lawsuits --- and your point( which I have not disagreed with nor missed ) the government didn't waive sovereign immunity from this lawsuit, nerds are ambivalent, cause it's the government
Remember this is "news for nerds" --- and some of the nerds were concerned that the government could commit copyright violations of their work and the courts will give blanket approval under this "precedent".
If you fill a DMCA lawsuit against the government -- the courts will use this case to decide that the DMCA violation exists, and that the government is immune from suit for the DMCA violation.
But if you, I or any other nerd ( who isn't a government employee inducing the use of their copyrighted work throught the course of their regular duties) files a copyright lawsuit against the government -- the judge should allow it to go ahead because they government waived blanket sovereign immunity from copyright years ago.
If you check the court records and/or other reports you will find that this lawsuit did address both the copyright and DMCA claims and that the court made decisions on both the copyright and DMCA claims so the point is --> it's not just sovereign immunity ( though that was directly related to the DMCA claim ) it was also the Sergeant not knowing enough about copyright to insure that his copyrighted work would be protected from the very limited set of circumstances in which the government can ignore actions under pre-existing copyright laws.
The government didn't waive copyright on the software --- The Sergeant waived copyright related actions against the Government by inducing the testing and use of his software through the course of his regular duties.
Please note the Sergeant still is the copyright holder of the software and can sell it to whomever wants to purchase it.
The federal government is not immune from all copyright claims!
This is one of the very rare circumstances where the government is immune.
Let's change the circumstances a little example.
Private Snokry LaRue is an infantry man -- and his lovely wife, Cindy Who-LaRue is civilian and works at the afternoon-evening shift at a local food distribution warehouse.
In his spare time ( cause he's bored during the evening ) Snorky learns to program and then writes a little piece of software called "TimeSaver" (tm) for his wife's company, it's a frigging success and the warehouse can, on average, process orders twice as fast as before.
The manager, Randy RipHoff, at the civilian warehouse happens to be the husband of USAF Major Roberta RipHoff who is in charge of the nearby USAF military logistics unit/depot. Randy raves about the benefits of Snorky LaRue's "TimeSaver" software. The Major drops by the civilian warehouse spring picnic asks for and gets a time constrained demo code CD from Snorky LaRue.
The major has one of her seventeen warehouses test the software for six weeks..... and again it's a frigging success. The major goes hog wild though when the code stops working after the demo date and hearing about this case decides she can just take the code without any worries.
So Private Snorky LaRue(Army) takes the USAF to court, and knowing about this case does not challenge them on the violation of DMCA cause he's aware the government is immune from DMCA actions.
Private Snorky LaRue (Army) only challenges the USAF on the copyright violation ---- and because Snorky LaRue did not induce "TimeSaver" testing or use in the course of his regular duties the court must and does find that the government does not have immunity from copyright actions
End result --->
1) Major Roberta RipHoff gets verbally abused about the head, by USAF logistics General Cash Cow.
2) General Cash Cow, well known by all as a kind and decent officer, pays a visit to Private Snorky LaRue and offers a reasonable settlement for the violation and to purchase new (non-demo) versions for all six hundred warehouses under his command.
3) Being a loyal and patriotic American who realizes that the error was entirely Major RipHoff's, Snorky Larue agrees to a $1.00 plus legal costs no-fault admitted settlement and then sells his code to the USAF for a mere $10,000.00/per warehouse
4) PROFIT!!!! of about $6,000,001.00
Same three issues - copyright, immunity from copyright actions and DMCA, but because Private Snorky Larue did not induce the software testing or use through the course of his regular duties the government is not immune from copyright related court actions.
In the case of copyright law, the US has given up much of its immunity, but the government retains a few noteworthy exceptions. The one most relevant to this case says that when a government employee is in a position to induce the use of the copyrighted material, "[the provision] does not provide a Government employee a right of action 'where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the copyrighted work by the Government.'" Given that Davenport used his position as part of the relevant Air Force office to get his peers to use his software, the case fails this test.
So he owns the copyright but since he induced the use of his copyrighted work in the course of his regular work related duties he forsakes his right to actionable copyright proceedings as it relates to the USAF.
He can still sell his copyrighted program to others, the USAF does not own his code -- the USAF just never have to be concerned about any claims of violation of copyright in regards to this code because they are immune because of his actions.
Three issues here -- copyright, immunity from copyright actions and DMCA.
1) Copyright was and still is his.
2) Immunity from copyright actions was decided based on above
3) DMCA violation was decided based on judges decision that the DMCA doesn't apply to the government.
The third party is the article mentioned "condominium fiber," ie the home owners who buy into this plan are the Third party -- a very local telecom - ie a utility -- which are the owners of the "condominium fiber".
SRDP design and deploy the "condominium fiber" -- then sell the cables/etc to a third part telco "condominium fiber" -- ie CF telco. CF telco is bought by the homeowners
SRDP are, as contractually agreed upon in the sale of CF telco, hired by CF telco to 1) give expert assistance which allows CF teclo to comply with all laws, statutes, by-laws, codes, ordinances, rules, orders and regulations of all governmental authorities in force, and in obtaining and maintaining any and all permits, licenses, official inspections or any other approvals and consents necessary or required for the placement or operation of the CF telco's equipment 2) manage the required cable network on behalf of its owners CF telco. 3) provide an attachment point for CF telco's equipment
So SRDP doesn't need to sell shares of itself -- it just needs to sell CF telco in a condominium style of legal arrangement to the homeowners.
Oh and before you ask about where the attachment point is between SRDP and CF telco --- under city hall ( I'm completely pulling this figure out of my magic hat ) about 15 feet inside the basement wall.
All very legal, logical and in keeping with the reported concept of "condominium fiber".
You're also busy assuming that the article contains all relevant legal terms and conditions of ownership of the cable --- so you're assuming extraordinary journalistic behavior and impeccable research
Unless you have access to the consumer document and it states otherwise -- I'm going to assume that the cable runs are part of the service corridor and that the home owner as the potential third parties will be granted any required easements under the terms of this agreement.
Higher takeup means lower pricesâ"strands could cost as little as $1000 if half the homes buy in. Homeowners can pay a lump sum or make monthly installments over three to five years. Once the final payment is made, the fiber strand would be the property of the homeowner.
The firm that's doing the work is not an ISP, but a company focused on building and managing dark fiber networks. Under an approach called "condominium fiber," it plans to manage the network on behalf of its owners in the same way that private companies manage condominium buildings, charging a small fee for the service. Because the company does not provide Internet service, it has no incentive to limit customers' choices in providers.
And yes I would assume that in order to own the cable easement rights would have to be granted to the home owner who has paid off the cable cost.
You also don't seem to understand that the company doesn't want to own the cable ( and accompanying easements ) it wants to get paid for managing the network. So why do the home owners need to own a share in the company?
A private company has recently completed a project to string dark fiber from a colocation facility under the Ottawa City Hall to a neighborhood of 400 older, upper-middle-class homes.
I think a company that is starting it's fiber to homes project from under city hall has already got the easements approved.
IANAL but I believe that "noncompliance of PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)" does not require a volunteer to take the infringing companies to court.
I believe that the Canadian government ( The Canadian privacy commissioner } can undertake an investigation and {where required} apply significant pressure on the infringing companies.
IANAL but I believe that the EULA must be read and 'agreed to' before it takes effect. So even if he read the paper document if he was not able to "click" on "I agree" ( or whatever ) then they can't claim he gave up his rights.
The big problem I have with the article is that they did not tell us what forum he posted the links in.
While it might have been listed as an "adult" forum did that mean the Hong Kong adult forum equivalent of Good Housekeeping or Hustler? If he posted hardcore porn to the Good Housekeeping type of forum I can see a common law smack down being used against him based on HK decency/obscenity laws
Anyone know the name of the forum where he posted the links?
Currently, the two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are responsible for all issues except acts of state like diplomatic relations and national defence: consequently, they have their own judiciaries and courts of final appeal, their own legislature, immigration policies, currencies and extradition processes. The pre-existing legal systems, namely common law in Hong Kong and Portuguese law in Macau, are preserved except consequential to establishment of courts of final appeal.
With listed exceptions, national laws applying in the mainland do not apply in a SAR. These listed exceptions must involve diplomacy, national defence or something beyond the scope of the SAR's autonomy.
IANAL --- but I did live in Hong Kong for a while trust me in Hong Kong you want to buy/rent/watch porn or go to a strip club to see naked women -- no significant problems.
The bill shouldn't discriminate between the OS and the voting software. This is not a general purpose machine that requires an advanced OS -- it requires a bare minimum system that can count votes and print ballots!
The machines that do these very limited tasks should not be something which Microsoft targets as a significant market for their standard operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's IP .... wtf?
Magnetically coupled connectors have been used between power cords and appliances in Asia for years longer than Apple have had MagSafe
Michael Geist's comment is about the potential about face by the CLC to be announced this upcoming Monday Feb, 9th.
He referenced a 2007 CLC document to show that their latest positions on Copyright and IP are not in line with their previous positions.
It's a very timely comment by Prof Geist.
Sorry it's not USB -- it requires the proprietary Green Plug chip to work.
They are trying to sell their chip by having us push the manufacturers into making mass purchases of the chip ( or chip schematics) because we "demand it".
And they are trying to sell this "initiative" as a standard without releasing the chip schematics to a standards organization.
The person in the video is Emily O'Brien a professional actress. You can find a much better video of Image Metric's work on this page of her website
from why reCAPTHCHA
WordPress has a GPL license and a reCAPTCHA plugin; so I'd hazard a guess that the reCAPTCHA license is open source friendly.
There is more than one issue under discussion in this post, in no particular order here a a few of them.
1) Copyright ie who owns the software copyright --- the Sergeant, nerds rejoice
2) Did the government remove copyright from the original producer of this software --- no, nerds rejoice again
3) Why the government is immune from copyright lawsuits under a very narrow and particular set of circumstances --- the Sergeant induced the use of his copyrighted work through the course of his regular duties, some nerds are dejected and learn from this error
4) Why the government in not immune from all copyright lawsuits ---- because the government waived blanket sovereign immunity from copyright years ago, most nerds rejoice
5) Did the USAF break the time-lock on the software and in doing so violate DMCA provisions -- yes and they even paid someone to break the lock, nerds are wishy-washy as some hate and some like the DMCA
6) Why the government is immune from DMCA lawsuits --- and your point( which I have not disagreed with nor missed ) the government didn't waive sovereign immunity from this lawsuit, nerds are ambivalent, cause it's the government
Remember this is "news for nerds" --- and some of the nerds were concerned that the government could commit copyright violations of their work and the courts will give blanket approval under this "precedent".
If you fill a DMCA lawsuit against the government -- the courts will use this case to decide that the DMCA violation exists, and that the government is immune from suit for the DMCA violation.
But if you, I or any other nerd ( who isn't a government employee inducing the use of their copyrighted work throught the course of their regular duties) files a copyright lawsuit against the government -- the judge should allow it to go ahead because they government waived blanket sovereign immunity from copyright years ago.
If you check the court records and/or other reports you will find that this lawsuit did address both the copyright and DMCA claims and that the court made decisions on both the copyright and DMCA claims so the point is --> it's not just sovereign immunity ( though that was directly related to the DMCA claim ) it was also the Sergeant not knowing enough about copyright to insure that his copyrighted work would be protected from the very limited set of circumstances in which the government can ignore actions under pre-existing copyright laws.
The government didn't waive copyright on the software --- The Sergeant waived copyright related actions against the Government by inducing the testing and use of his software through the course of his regular duties.
Please note the Sergeant still is the copyright holder of the software and can sell it to whomever wants to purchase it.
The federal government is not immune from all copyright claims!
..... and again it's a frigging success. The major goes hog wild though when the code stops working after the demo date and hearing about this case decides she can just take the code without any worries.
This is one of the very rare circumstances where the government is immune.
Let's change the circumstances a little example.
Private Snokry LaRue is an infantry man -- and his lovely wife, Cindy Who-LaRue is civilian and works at the afternoon-evening shift at a local food distribution warehouse.
In his spare time ( cause he's bored during the evening ) Snorky learns to program and then writes a little piece of software called "TimeSaver" (tm) for his wife's company, it's a frigging success and the warehouse can, on average, process orders twice as fast as before.
The manager, Randy RipHoff, at the civilian warehouse happens to be the husband of USAF Major Roberta RipHoff who is in charge of the nearby USAF military logistics unit/depot. Randy raves about the benefits of Snorky LaRue's "TimeSaver" software. The Major drops by the civilian warehouse spring picnic asks for and gets a time constrained demo code CD from Snorky LaRue.
The major has one of her seventeen warehouses test the software for six weeks
So Private Snorky LaRue(Army) takes the USAF to court, and knowing about this case does not challenge them on the violation of DMCA cause he's aware the government is immune from DMCA actions.
Private Snorky LaRue (Army) only challenges the USAF on the copyright violation ---- and because Snorky LaRue did not induce "TimeSaver" testing or use in the course of his regular duties the court must and does find that the government does not have immunity from copyright actions
End result --->
1) Major Roberta RipHoff gets verbally abused about the head, by USAF logistics General Cash Cow.
2) General Cash Cow, well known by all as a kind and decent officer, pays a visit to Private Snorky LaRue and offers a reasonable settlement for the violation and to purchase new (non-demo) versions for all six hundred warehouses under his command.
3) Being a loyal and patriotic American who realizes that the error was entirely Major RipHoff's, Snorky Larue agrees to a $1.00 plus legal costs no-fault admitted settlement and then sells his code to the USAF for a mere $10,000.00/per warehouse
4) PROFIT!!!! of about $6,000,001.00
Same three issues - copyright, immunity from copyright actions and DMCA, but because Private Snorky Larue did not induce the software testing or use through the course of his regular duties the government is not immune from copyright related court actions.
So he owns the copyright but since he induced the use of his copyrighted work in the course of his regular work related duties he forsakes his right to actionable copyright proceedings as it relates to the USAF.
He can still sell his copyrighted program to others, the USAF does not own his code -- the USAF just never have to be concerned about any claims of violation of copyright in regards to this code because they are immune because of his actions.
Three issues here -- copyright, immunity from copyright actions and DMCA.
1) Copyright was and still is his.
2) Immunity from copyright actions was decided based on above
3) DMCA violation was decided based on judges decision that the DMCA doesn't apply to the government.
You could also assume that
The third party is the article mentioned "condominium fiber," ie the home owners who buy into this plan are the Third party -- a very local telecom - ie a utility -- which are the owners of the "condominium fiber".
SRDP design and deploy the "condominium fiber" -- then sell the cables/etc to a third part telco "condominium fiber" -- ie CF telco. CF telco is bought by the homeowners
SRDP are, as contractually agreed upon in the sale of CF telco, hired by CF telco to
1) give expert assistance which allows CF teclo to comply with all laws, statutes, by-laws, codes, ordinances, rules, orders and regulations of all governmental authorities in force, and in obtaining and maintaining any and all permits, licenses, official inspections or any other approvals and consents necessary or required for the placement or operation of the CF telco's equipment
2) manage the required cable network on behalf of its owners CF telco.
3) provide an attachment point for CF telco's equipment
So SRDP doesn't need to sell shares of itself -- it just needs to sell CF telco in a condominium style of legal arrangement to the homeowners.
Oh and before you ask about where the attachment point is between SRDP and CF telco --- under city hall ( I'm completely pulling this figure out of my magic hat ) about 15 feet inside the basement wall.
All very legal, logical and in keeping with the reported concept of "condominium fiber".
You're also busy assuming that the article contains all relevant legal terms and conditions of ownership of the cable --- so you're assuming extraordinary journalistic behavior and impeccable research
The City of Ottawa and Société de Réseaux Dédiés Privés Inc have entered into a municipal - telco agreement -- so once again -- I really think they have been granted the required easement rights and yes I do think that the home owners get to be Third Party Attachments to this agreement ( section 11 )
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/04-25/csedc/ACS2007-PWS-INF-0003.htm
English home page for Société de Réseaux Dédiés Privés Inc http://www.srdptele.com/en/home/
Unless you have access to the consumer document and it states otherwise -- I'm going to assume that the cable runs are part of the service corridor and that the home owner as the potential third parties will be granted any required easements under the terms of this agreement.
And yes I would assume that in order to own the cable easement rights would have to be granted to the home owner who has paid off the cable cost.
You also don't seem to understand that the company doesn't want to own the cable ( and accompanying easements ) it wants to get paid for managing the network. So why do the home owners need to own a share in the company?
I think a company that is starting it's fiber to homes project from under city hall has already got the easements approved.
IANAL but I believe that "noncompliance of PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)" does not require a volunteer to take the infringing companies to court.
I believe that the Canadian government ( The Canadian privacy commissioner } can undertake an investigation and {where required} apply significant pressure on the infringing companies.
"powered by these" .... that's what you were trying to say, right?
IANAL but I believe that the EULA must be read and 'agreed to' before it takes effect. So even if he read the paper document if he was not able to "click" on "I agree" ( or whatever ) then they can't claim he gave up his rights.
Hong Kong is not Mainland China!
It is a Special Administrative Region that has it's own law separate laws and judicial system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong
I don't want to type it out again so http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234461&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=19094737#19 094947
The big problem I have with the article is that they did not tell us what forum he posted the links in.
While it might have been listed as an "adult" forum did that mean the Hong Kong adult forum equivalent of Good Housekeeping or Hustler? If he posted hardcore porn to the Good Housekeeping type of forum I can see a common law smack down being used against him based on HK decency/obscenity laws
Anyone know the name of the forum where he posted the links?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrati
The laws of Hong Kong are based on a mixture of British law and Chinese law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Hong_Ko
IANAL --- but I did live in Hong Kong for a while trust me in Hong Kong you want to buy/rent/watch porn or go to a strip club to see naked women -- no significant problems.
I believe that the one{?} year from publish to patent is only in America .... and only if "you" are American.
You: person, team, school, business, etc
Come on ... slashdot's not polite enough to be Canadian. ;)
:D
Plus if it was Canadian we'd get a lot more hockey related stories and comments
CTG please note; the voting machines are actually required to do less than an ATM.
1) ATMs are required to have secure communications capabilities, but the voting machines are required NOT to have any communications capabilities.
2) ATM's are required to read a mag stripe, but the voting machines are NOT required to read a mag stripe{or any type of card}
3) ATM's are required to display and print a number of various types of forms and formats, but voting machines are NOT.
So the OS in the category of voting machine can and should have limited capabilities in respect to the OS in the category of ATM.
The bill shouldn't discriminate between the OS and the voting software. This is not a general purpose machine that requires an advanced OS -- it requires a bare minimum system that can count votes and print ballots! The machines that do these very limited tasks should not be something which Microsoft targets as a significant market for their standard operating systems.